"Ok Bill Gates and one or two others. But considering the numbers of American businessmen, the percentage is a tad tiny!" Ian Hislop did a series a while back about benevolent UK bankers whose contributions seem to be driven by the moral conflict of being good Christians while working in the home of Mammon. USA benevolence (Rockafeller, Gates etc) IMHO is driven by a combination of wealth guilt and a vainglorious desire for altruistic recognition.
He isn't joing Liverpool. The Blessed Brendan said it the other week "I was asked the question about Balotelli last week and spoke about what a talent he is and excellent player he is,” Rodgers said during Liverpool's tour of the US. “But I can categorically tell you that he will not be coming to Liverpool." I cannot believe he would say one thing and then go and do the complete opposite - never done it before
I really hope that he doesn't join Liverpool. He's a direct replacement for Suarez, both in terms of natural ability and nuttiness. If Rodgers could keep him focused, which he largely managed with Ol' Bitey, then they'd have an impressive strike force again.
This Malky Mackay business brings up two questions. The first is why is he such a twat? The second is how did all of these texts get to become public knowledge? It appears that the Fail dug them up, but that stinks of phone tapping and other questionable behaviour. The first question can largely be answered by this picture: please log in to view this image Rather ironic sponsor, given the situation.
It does confirm that Tan was right to sack Malky, when many of us thought it was an outrageous decision. Up until today, I was thinking Mackay was a good fit for Palace and a perfect replacement for Pulis. Now I think Tan made a good call a few months ago and Mackay is a bit of an ignorant t**t.
I would imagine Vincent Tan is responsible for 2). These texts were probably done on company mobiles and if he was stupid enough to not delete when he was sacked...? Still probably illegal though.
Yes, he's utterly destroyed his reputation as a good upcoming manager. I doubt very much he will ever get a job in English football/media again. The only place I can see him going now is off to coach in some Eastern European league, or Italy, where racism, homophobia and sexism seem to be positive attributes.
Failing in the Premier League often gets you the Celtic job: Tony Mowbray and Gordon Strachan being obvious examples.
I think he genuinely wasn't chasing Telly at that point. I think he probably hoped to get Reus, Cavani, and Falcao, or some other big name, but upon failing to capture them, he looked who else might be available and picked Telly.
It sounds pretty final. A bit like when he told Watford fans they were disgraceful to question his integrity as he was there for the long haul - then 24 hours later joined Reading.
Of course he's in it for the money - why buy a club and not be interested in making money. The difference is he (and FSG) are going about it the right way, with patience. He know's the sports industry inside out. Look what he did with the Boston Red Sox, turned them into world beaters, made a huge profit and the team are 20 times better than when he bought them. He's doing the same with Liverpool - he's certainly not stupid (like the Glazers), he know's how the sport industry works and early signs with regards to Liverpool do nothing but back that up. All owners are in it for the money. Unfortunately football is a business nowadays, unless you're some mega rich oil tycoon that buy's a club as purely a hobby.
A job at Millwall or West Ham beckons. We might believe we're above racism and other forms of discrimination but the Suarez incident begs to differ. In time it can be swept under the carpet if you're popular enough.
Those who give money to charity buy social status. That's truer of the US than the UK, but it's true to some extent everywhere. Without his charitable giving, Bill Gates is a greedy big businessman. A modest investment in (what are, tbf, mostly well-chosen causes) and he's Saint Bill. Society's approval, like everything else, has its price.
Liverpool next play City and then us and I hope we meet them with six points in the bag as I feel the Pool match is pivotal to early season form. They only just beat a Saints side bereft of most of their best players so City should beat them and if we want to do things then so must we. Beating QPR with Harry and Hoddle there will not be easy but a win against Hoops has never been more vital.
QPR does look pretty big, but I'm more concerned we show some progress towards playing attractive football. Last year winning our first two games didn't help us much. Losing the next week against Arsenal started us on a season long pattern of losing to top four teams. US vs. UK charitable giving, from http://pndblog.typepad.com/pndblog/2014/04/infographic-charitable-giving-in-the-us-vs-the-uk.html US: Highest percentage of giving as proportion of GDP, 1.45 % UK: 6th highest % in the world of charitable giving as proportion of GDP: .4% Gross numbers $218 billion US vs. $9 billion UK. Of course, no statistic (even assuming these numbers are correct, which I tend to) tells the whole story. I stand corrected on Man U's spending. I hadn't been paying much attention, saw the likes of Herrera and thought they hadn't shelled out any money. The truth, as a number of you have pointed out, is that they've bought mediocrity for vast sums of money. So they have spent money, and are willing to spend much more, but can't get the top line talent to agree to come there--except Van Gaal. I wonder if they can get Di Maria, and if he will make a big difference. Xabi Alonso seems more like it. But as with Fabregas, while his quality is unquestionable, I can't help wondering how well a big player in his late twenties is going to hold up to a season of PL fouling. Everyone certainly kicked lumps in Bale. Trying to make a profit by making your club more successful and hence more valuable is what I thought all owners should be doing. Joe Lewis has no more and no less charitable concern for Spurs than John Henry has for Liverpool. It's strictly business for both. The owners who pour money into teams without seeming to care to make a profit make them rich man's playthings. The Glazers are a different story, I agree, exploiting a ridiculous loophole to buy Man U with Man U's own money, getting themselves a huge asset by draining the club's resources.
I cannot comment about the business side of football because I know nothing about it and it's not my concern. I want a successful Spurs playing good form football and giving value for money for the spectators on the pitch. For me the results early on in the season say how we will do later on as it showed last season in the Europa and for this season I'm cautiously optimistic as to how things will go. The first match of the season is no great indicator as I've seen teams win well first match and then get thrashed second match so let's see how the second match goes. A 2-0 will suit me on Sunday.
rwaeb : Yes, the USA does have a good record in charitable actions. On the club side, whatever contempt you have for the Glazers, it has worked for them and not damaged the on-pitch success of Man Utd (probably Fergie to thank for that) . Spurs are interesting in that ENIC appear to be treating competing with the Sky 4 and Sugga Daddy FCs while injecting effectively nothing in cash, as some kind of science experiment.
